Municipal Tree Management in New Jersey

Management and Budgetary Allocations

The effective management of city trees seems to be directly related to adequate funding for proper maintenance. Three-fourths of the respondents felt that inadequate funding was the major obstacle to overcome in providing optimum tree care while only   17   percent   viewed the lack of technical expertise to be the chief barrier. New Jersey’s urban tree managers appear to be taking advantage of the state’s excellent cooperative extension program in urban horticulture and arboriculture, as well as an active shade tree federation to gain the necessary technical expertise.

But technical expertise doesn’t prune trees, people do as a result of budget funds allocated for tree care. In this respect, urban tree programs in New Jersey have suffered along with the rest of local government because of the decrease in federal aid programs, state cutbacks and lost revenues.

By city size, shade tree funding over the last five years, when adjusted for inflation, has decreased in 80 percent of our largest communities (Table 2). And although budgets have in creased in a greater percentage of remaining smaller cities, many have lost funding (53 vs. 37 percent, respectively).

New Jersey urban tree management agencies spend less of their time in tree related activities as compared to the national average in 1980 as reported by Giedraitis and Kielbaso (1982) (53 vs. 61 percent respectively). Visibility of the tree maintenance operation is an important factor in obtaining and keeping yearly budget funds. Tree care agencies in name only probably will not get their share of funds for tree care and may be inefficient when called upon to perform tree work. Workers who spend less time on tree care activities that require skill lose proficiency.

Urban tree management functions in New Jersey cities fall into three major activities consisting of removal (including debris pickup, 37 percent), planting (21 percent) and pruning (16 percent). These comprise nearly three-fourths of total budget expenditures and roughly equal the 1980 national average of 71 percent for the same activities (Giedraitis and Kielbaso 1982).

Inadequate budgets caused by underfunding or funding cuts often force the emphasis to shift from preventative systematic tree care activities to those that are corrective and responsive. When pruning budgets are curtailed, for example, areawide rotational pruning may be discontinued in favor of individual tree pruning by resident request. Activities become more tree specific and work is scheduled in favor of tree care which “satisfied” the citizen and political decision maker.

In 61 percent of the cities surveyed, the primary reason given for scheduling tree work is a result of resident requests, while only 36 percent of the cities listed staff inspections as the primary reason. Few communities seem to rely on outside help or data from tree inventories to aid in determining work needs.

An accurate, well designed inventory provides worthwhile information regarding the number, location and condition of the trees and can aid the urban tree manager in making more informed decisions with respect to present maintenance and future planning objectives.

Table 4 gives a complete breakdown by population group of finished inventories, average number of street trees, and budget information. In general, while we exceed the 1980 national average of 22 percent as reported by Giedraitis and Kielbaso (1982), only one-third (33 percent) of the cities responding in New Jersey have conducted and completed inventories. The remaining have not for reasons of lack of funds, interest, skill and workforce.

Many respondents admitted that scheduling by request often necessitates having to reschedule similar tree work on the same street at a later date because of another request. Politically this may be expedient, but it is seldom efficient.

From inventory records, the average number of street trees per New Jersey city is substantially less than the 1980 average for cities under 500,000 population (10,249 vs. 17,853 trees respectively) (the national average for cities under 500,000 is estimated from data reported by Giedraitis and Kielbaso (1982) because Newark is our largest city with 329,000 persons).

Performing Tree Work by Outside Contract

Because of uncertain funding levels, lack of equipment and employee skills, and cost savings, municipalities often use contracted service (Table 5). Contract services are used in 70 percent of the New Jersey cities to fulfill all or some of their tree care responsibilities (Table 6). The top 3 major items contracted for by cities are tree removal, planting and pruning (69, 63 and 53 percent, respectively). Nearly all of the municipalities (93 percent) reported that contracting fulfilled their needs. This is probably because of the long history and ready availability of competent arboriculture work provided by licensed certified tree experts and other private arborists.

Even though contracting is widely used, a considerable amount of tree work is performed by regular employees (Table 5). On the average New Jersey cities have more full-time tree care employees compared to the 1980 national average (3.9 vs. 3 employees, respectively) as reported by Giedraitis and kielbaso (1982).

Shade Tree Ordinances and Public Tree Commissions

New Jersey was one of the first states to enact legislation that allowed municipalities to set up ordinances regarding the care and preservation of public shade trees and to appoint shade tree commissioners to regulate tree maintenance activities. This long history of legislative involvement may account for the higher percentage of cities having ordinances than the national average (73 percent vs. 61 percent, respectively). Generally, these or- dinances seem to fulfill the needs of the smaller communities (Table 7). In the majority of larger cities, however, ordinances were not able to meet the needs of the tree managers for reasons such as revisions needed, doesn’t cover activities, and difficult to enforce.

The shade tree commission is an integral part of urban tree management in New Jersey (Table 8). Most commissions are comprised of 5 members appointed by the mayor. Some are more active than others depending on the backgrounds, interests and leadership abilities of individuals in respective commissions. Communications between shade tree commissions are facilitated by a shade tree federation which publishes a monthly bulletin and sponsors a well-attended annual educational meeting. Members individually and collectively advise the tree care agency on management needs, deal with citizens and city officials, and in some smaller communities actually perform planting and minor pruning tasks. Shade tree commissions are more frequently found in smaller cities probably due to the absence of a professional tree-care-oriented position.

Tree Planting Activities

Properly selected tree species or cultivars that can withstand the harsh effects of the urban environment determine the future composition, and to a great extent, future maintenance needs of the tree resource. Planting is an investment for the future in an urban tree management program. Investing wisely will return high values from the physiological, economic and aesthetic benefits urban trees can provide. Planting is a visible and popular function of New Jersey city tree care agencies, yet it appears that little emphasis is being placed on the smaller ornamental type trees. The old standby, Norway maple, and its cultivars is the most widely planted species (Table 9). The composition of established street trees in New Jersey cities is not much different than that reported by Giedraitis and Kielbaso (1982) for the Northeast United States. Only 7 percent of the New Jersey cities operate their own nurseries as compared to the national average of 22 percent in 1980 (Giedraitis and Kielbaso 1982). This is probably due to the number of excellent commercial shade tree nurseries located in or near the state.

Summary and Conclusion

In this, the first in-depth study of the public tree care agencies in New Jersey, we found that, in general, the biggest obstacle to tree care was lack of funding. A greater percentage of larger cities are experiencing budget reductions than are smaller ones, probably as an indirect result of the cuts in federal aid.

Tree care agencies in our state spend less of their time actually working on tree care when compared to the national average, primarily schedule work as a result of requests, but end up spending about the same proportion of time on planting, pruning and removal as do other cities in the nation.

Inventories have been taken in nearly one-third of the communities surveyed, but do not appear to be utilized for systematic tree care.

On the average there are fewer street trees than are found in comparable cities in other regions of the country. Shade tree managers buy nearly all of their trees from commercial nurseries and plant the same type of trees as do other cities in nearby states.

Nearly three-fourths of the communities in New Jersey have tree ordinances, but the largest cities are less satisfied with their ordinances than are the smaller ones. Public tree bodies are widely established here and are more frequently found in smaller cities.

Unfortunately, the most urban state does not appear to be much different than the rest of the nation in general level of tree care it gives its communities. A conclusion would be that whatever “lead” it seemed to have at the turn of the century has been lost due to budget cuts, lack of interest or higher priority items as identified by public administrators and political decision makers.